Bob and Shelley Again

[SteveHopwood]

I wish you had been around 7 years ago armed with what you know now, when I first fell into the black pit train wreck that is retail Forex trading. You would have saved me a few dollars. More below.

"Let profits run" is good advice in a trending market. The classic example is long-term commodity trend-following. With those systems in those markets, the long-term results critically depend on grabbing the occasional huge win -- which you only get if you let your profits run. So for that market, "let profits run" is good advice. But real honest-to-God trending markets are actually fairly rare.

Especially in Forex markets, it seems - unless you have deep pockets, infinite patience and can run with the monthly charts.

But in a **reversing** market, of which there are many, "let profits run" will just result in "give your profits back."

Time and time again.

"Let profits run" doesn't work in a market that doesn't trend well. "Grab small profits, rinse and repeat" often works better in these markets -- as Bob often demonstrates in his thread.

I am coming to the conclusion that it is better to do this anyway. So we miss a few big moves - so what? Think of all the lovely small profits we have accrued along the way.

Even "cut your losses short" isn't a universal truth. Larry Connors' ETF strategies don't work if you put a stop on them. The trades need room to "breathe." You can argue whether it's smart to run ANY system without a stop, but for those systems to work, you can't cut the losses short.

Don't assume you can apply simple rules to all markets. Look at how your target market behaves, and trade it accordingly.

Even I, thick as I am, am gradually learning this salient point.

Guys, Gary does not post here often. When he does, I suggest you take note. He did not earn the colour that his name displays by being a dimwit.

Mind, he did manage to press the wrong button and ban himself one time, but I promised never to mention that ever again.

Damn. It just slipped out. Sorry Gary.

[trader689]

ah many thanks

thanks for the feedback zTB. your reply also as prompted a very good response from Steve, so that is good

But just to clarify a little, I was asking about a "half close" option within the EA? it seems to be mentioned here, or is that a reference to an external trade manager? thanks people

Hi,

you have to set this to true:

Code: Select all

extern bool     HalfCloseEnabled=false;

that's it, you will find it were is the BE value to set

Cheers

Tommaso

[Pedigree]

"Cut losses short and let profits run" is practically gospel in the trading community. But as zTB said, it is NOT always true.

"Let profits run" is good advice in a trending market. The classic example is long-term commodity trend-following. With those systems in those markets, the long-term results critically depend on grabbing the occasional huge win -- which you only get if you let your profits run. So for that market, "let profits run" is good advice. But real honest-to-God trending markets are actually fairly rare.

But in a **reversing** market, of which there are many, "let profits run" will just result in "give your profits back." "Let profits run" doesn't work in a market that doesn't trend well. "Grab small profits, rinse and repeat" often works better in these markets -- as Bob often demonstrates in his thread.

Even "cut your losses short" isn't a universal truth. Larry Connors' ETF strategies don't work if you put a stop on them. The trades need room to "breathe." You can argue whether it's smart to run ANY system without a stop, but for those systems to work, you can't cut the losses short.

Don't assume you can apply simple rules to all markets. Look at how your target market behaves, and trade it accordingly.

This post should be set in stone for anyone remotely interested in forex trading. Much credit to you Gary - as usual!

[fchaman]

Excellent performance so far on eurcad & audcad buy...it was a smooth re-entry on both trades

[spotdespot]

Hi Steve - I noticed I had a NZDCAD buy that didn't close half the trade @ 30 pips even though it was set to do so. It set BE fine but missed the closing half. I am not much of a coder but I checked the code anyway and the only thing I can see is a discrepancy between the way buys and sells are treated with respect to the half close. For the Buy order there is no step to ensure Empty4 doesn't do its "equal numbers are not always equal" trick

Code: Select all

      //Trade types and half-close, and adjust sl/tp in case slippage has caused them to be inaccurate when the trade was sent.
      if (OrderType() == OP_BUY) 
      {
         BuyOpen = true;
         if (HalfCloseEnabled && OrderLots() == Lot && OrderStopLoss() >= OrderOpenPrice() ) HalfCloseTrade(OrderTicket() );
      }//if (OrderType() == OP_BUY) 
      
      if (OrderType() == OP_SELL) 
      {
         SellOpen = true;
         if (HalfCloseEnabled && OrderLots() == Lot && OrderStopLoss() <= OrderOpenPrice()  && !CloseEnough(OrderStopLoss(), 0)) HalfCloseTrade(OrderTicket() );
      }//if (OrderType() == OP_SELL) 

Cheers,
Dave.

[fchaman]

Same here...One demo with initial lots of 0.1 didn´t close half, but the other demo with 0.02, it did close half!

[MrLong]

Same here...One demo with initial lots of 0.1 didn´t close half, but the other demo with 0.02, it did close half!

Possibly, 0.01 lot is min lot size.

[matrixebiz]

0.01 is the smallest size but fchaman said "lots of 0.1" so it should have off loaded 0.05

EDIT: I think you can only close an order partially by a lot amount, so if you are already at your Brokers min lotsize then that feature won't work.

[MrLong]

0.01 is the smallest size but fchaman said "lots of 0.1" so it should have off loaded 0.05.

Yes, that's why I put possibly.

[SteveHopwood]

Hi Steve - I noticed I had a NZDCAD buy that didn't close half the trade @ 30 pips even though it was set to do so. It set BE fine but missed the closing half. I am not much of a coder but I checked the code anyway and the only thing I can see is a discrepancy between the way buys and sells are treated with respect to the half close. For the Buy order there is no step to ensure Empty4 doesn't do its "equal numbers are not always equal" trick

Code: Select all

      //Trade types and half-close, and adjust sl/tp in case slippage has caused them to be inaccurate when the trade was sent.
      if (OrderType() == OP_BUY) 
      {
         BuyOpen = true;
         if (HalfCloseEnabled && OrderLots() == Lot && OrderStopLoss() >= OrderOpenPrice() ) HalfCloseTrade(OrderTicket() );
      }//if (OrderType() == OP_BUY) 
      
      if (OrderType() == OP_SELL) 
      {
         SellOpen = true;
         if (HalfCloseEnabled && OrderLots() == Lot && OrderStopLoss() <= OrderOpenPrice()  && !CloseEnough(OrderStopLoss(), 0)) HalfCloseTrade(OrderTicket() );
      }//if (OrderType() == OP_SELL) 

Cheers,
Dave.

Nope. When dealing with sell trades we have to take account of the possibility of a zero stop loss, hence the !CloseEnough(OrderStopLoss(), 0) otherwise whatever is intended to happen when a sell stop loss is < the order open price will happen, because the sl is < the order open price because it is zero.

No idea what happened to your trade, but it is a failure on the part of your platform. We need a mechanism that will check for a failed half-close at breakeven. Even as I type this, I begin to see in my mind what caused the problem and how to work around it. It is my old pal - a bit of mis-logic in CountOpenTrades(). Leave it with me.

Moving on.

Those of us who have experienced the power of a successful stack basket have been blown away.

Those of us who have followed Shelley's more rigorous system of trading filters allied with a half-close at +30 without stacking have benefited in the last couple of days. For sure, I have.

We have seen perfect examples of the general principal of both letting winners run and Shelley's rinse and repeat sizes with higher lot approach. Forget the cutting losers short stuff - BASA takes care of that.

I have been thinking about this and we can have the best of both worlds.

BASA's next incarnation will include the ability to stack trades at half the lot size of the main/reentry trade once BE is achieved and half the trade has been closed. What passes for my mind is already working on this.